Share this story

Even before Google and Verizon published their sweeping new Internet proposals for Congress, the net neutrality troops were out in force against the alliance.

"DON'T BE EVIL," proclaimed the Monday morning banner headline announcing the delivery of a petition signed by 300,000 people urging the search engine giant to back away from its alliance with Verizon.

"Google has always presented itself as a different kind of corporate entity," warned Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org. "The fact that they are involved in a deal that would kill Internet freedom directly contradicts this image. We hope that Google will reconsider before they are seen as just another giant corporation out to make a buck regardless of the consequence."

Shortly after the plan was unveiled, Public Knowledge damned it as a package that "does almost nothing to preserve an open Internet."

But we don't need these press releases to report the obvious. The Google/Verizon manifesto claims to preserve "transparency" on the 'Net, but the only really transparent thing about the plan is that it is packed with so many loopholes, a deep packet inspection powered P2P blocker the size of an M1 Abrams tank could roll through it without disturbing a telco executive's nap.

Meaningful harm

Sure, the Google/Verizon press release proclaims that the proposal means that "for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition."

But the legislative document itself says the following (all italics are ours):

"In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users."

So who is going to decide what kind of harm is "meaningful"? Presumably the Federal Communications Commission, which gets to issue $2 million fines—except that under this plan the agency would enforce its components "through case-by-case adjudication, but would have no rulemaking authority with respect to those provisions."

"Parties would be encouraged to use nongovernmental dispute resolution processes established by independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiatives," the proposal continues, "and the FCC would be directed to give appropriate deference to decisions or advisory opinions of such groups."

In other words, some kind of organization dominated by Google and Verizon would decide what constitutes "meaningful harm," and the FCC would do what it tells them to do.

Rebut me

And yes, the "new nondiscrimination principle" the companies advocate "includes a presumption against prioritization of Internet traffic—including paid prioritization."

Except when it doesn't.

"Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted," the fine print says.

And the scheme's definition of "reasonable network practices" includes "any technically sound practice... to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet..." and... "to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network."

We're sorry, but we're seeing prioritization arrangements all over this language—from Comcast's plain old P2P blocking, which was clearly "unwanted" by that provider's network, to Cox cable's traffic prioritization experiment, in which the company notified users that "less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups," would be delayed during periods of congestion.

And we haven't even gotten to this canyon-sized loophole in the Verizon/Google plan:

A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.

The FCC would be allowed to publish an annual survey "on the effect of these additional services" and "immediately report if it finds at any time that these services threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access services or have been devised or promoted in a manner designed to evade these consumer protections."

But what exactly will these "additional or differentiated" services that ISPs could charge content providers extra cash for be? IP Video? The latest, coolest live conferencing app?

And to whom would the Commission "report"? We don't know. But again, since the proposal forbids the FCC from making any rules, we fear that the complaint will go to Verizon and Google and the rest of the winners circle, who will decide what these exemptible services will be, then give the Commission its marching orders.

Transparency except...

Finally, the Verizon/Google plan has a mechanism for transparency. "Providers of broadband Internet access service would be required to disclose accurate and relevant information in plain language about the characteristics and capabilities of their offerings, their broadband network management, and other practices necessary for consumers and other users to make informed choices..."

...which is the sole part of the whole shebang to which Verizon Wireless or any other wireless provider would have to adhere:

"Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time."

Decision time

Let's not forget something here—wireless broadband is the future. The FCC's National Broadband Plan cites studies projecting that with the next five years, the quantity of mobile data traffic in North America will jump by a factor 20 to 40 times the amount measured in 2009.

Agree or disagree about net neutrality, but surely nondiscrimination rules that do not cover wireless broadband delivery systems will become meaningless as 4G sweeps the country and most mobiles become application-packed smartphone devices.

As we write this, our Inbox continues to fill with outrage over the plan. Some praise came from the Technology Policy Institute.

"In my view, new regulation is not needed to preserve the open Internet," declared its president Thomas Lenard. "Nevertheless, the Verizon-Google proposal has to be viewed as a serious and constructive effort to address the policy impasse that the FCC has created for itself."

We asked the FCC for comment on the proposal. "Decline to comment at this time," came the response.

But FCC Commissioner Michael Copps has posted the following on the agency's site.

"Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward," Copps warned. "That's one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

Share this story

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

57 Reader Comments

It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.

Well, let's see it then. The government action cycle can be much, much longer than what the public and corporations desire, after all. If nothing else, it's nice seeing a position from all parties coming forth.

'And the scheme's definition of "reasonable network practices" includes "any technically sound practice... to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet..."'

This could also mean that ISPs still have the ability to block sites based upon something like the IWF list (whether you agree with it or not; many sites use it and will want to continue to use it), or throttle/block DDOSes; something that an absolute neutrality rule (all bits are equal) wouldn't permit.

"...........to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations."

I'll believe THAT when I see it. Maybe I'm just a skeptical old biddy but that almost never happens. We might as well practice bending over and grabbing our ankles now because that's the position the average consumer will be assuming in the near future. Of course with cable TV we should already be used to it I guess.

Is Google evil yet? People complain about the Apple reality distortion field but at least Apple (and Microsoft) don't hide the fact that they are for profit (e.g. self promoting or evil) companies. Where is the outrage with Google?

BTW, where is their BS 1Gbps fiber roll-out? Oh yeah, nowhere because that was a publicity stunt designed to curry favor with the Internet ilk.

"The nurse should not be the one who puts salt in your wounds.But it’s always with trust that the poison is fed with a spoon."

It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.

Well, let's see it then. The government action cycle can be much, much longer than what the public and corporations desire, after all. If nothing else, it's nice seeing a position from all parties coming forth.

The FCC was ready to do this immediately: reclassifying broadband as a different type of service. Verizon and it's ilk fought it, and now it's stalled. In this case, it's the corporations themselves that are breaking the process improvement here.

A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization.

Just a guess, but given that it's only practical to run one physical link to each customer, this is probably an attempt to keep the FCC from strangling regulating anything and everything IP, including services offered over a private network from the concentrator/GWR inward. Numerous ISP's are offering services that use this sort of architecture, and all of them are rightfully concerned about the potential for the FCC yanking the rug out from under them.

I never thought I'd share a view with Lasar, or even Public Knowledge, but this deal is utter bullshit for consumers. And after the "hybrid" approach the FCC tried to pawn off on us, I find it hard to believe they have the balls to do what's right for us.

I'd really like to see a bill move through congress concerning these issues, so we can see which representatives we need to vote out and get someone into power that will stand up to these two huge abusive industries.

It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.

Yes please, Mr Copps, by all means put the consumers interest in the front. Just reclassify them already and let them howl. I do not believe the likes of Verizon will ever agree to anything that might have the slightest chance to reign in their greed. So they will howl anyway, no matter what you do.

gesprague wrote:

I'll believe THAT when I see it. Maybe I'm just a skeptical old biddy but that almost never happens...

Color me skeptical too, but at least the commissioner is not in the camp who claims that the best way to serve the consumers interests it to give big business what ever it wants, like some have in the past. So he is at least doing a better job at lip service. Who knows, maybe he even means what he said.

But the cynic in me says the hope I feel about his comments just means I was one of those "suckers born every minute".

You know what we should do? Have a patchwork of network regulations that are strict in California and lax in states like Texas. Guess which ones will have better competition? Of course, if there's one thing corporations hate more than tough regulation, it's a patchwork of tough and lax regulations But seriously, how hard can the DEFINITION of net neutrality be? Just be freakin' neutral on how you treat your traffic. That means no traffic shaping, no discrimination against traffic, no priority access, no extra charges for visiting a certain site, no blocking of content. Sounds nice, doesn't it? And yet it seems to be the exact opposite these companies want, because they have a captive audience for their services.

I hope someone nukes the Internet so that we won't have to rely on it as part of our daily lives anymore.

Technological advancement has become synonymous with increased control of entire populaces from both the corporations and the government. CCTV watch our every move on the street. Our increasing reliance on the Internet for pleasure and commerce have made us increasingly more vulnerable to the corporations that control the pipes and read/monitor everything that we send and receive.

Who needs Facebook when I can hire a courier to deliver my message? Who needs online banking when I can visit the bank across the street?

Hypocritical, I know, but sometimes I think that man would have been better off stuck with 18th century technology. We would be a freer people, and far less constrained.

You have just become a troll-feeder. You have lost my respect. Go join Fox News now, your seat should be waiting.

That was a fantastic post all the evidence leading to your argument italicized and highlighted, logically leading to your conclusions, as well as presenting statements, both pro and con, from expert vested parties in the debate.

It seems to me like the entire goal of this proposal is to create loopholes for the creators, while stifling the creation of upstarts which would rival the dominance of major Internet players. It's basically legislating yourself into a position where you no longer need to be innovative or have a good business model, you just need to be the person making the rules and therefore making your own piece of the monopoly.

The beauty of the Internet, however, is that there are a lot of creative people out there which makes the idea of an underground Internet completely reasonable and probable.

a footnote on the "Technology Policy Institute," which consistently takes positions friendly to the interests of large telecom and tech companies. like many other think tanks based in Washington, its intellectual independence is suspect, because it's very likely that it's funding comes from the industry it studies. so it's no surprise that its president would question the need for regulation, while making sure to praise verizon and google. perhaps ars should ask thomas lenard whether his organization has received contributions from either company or the trade associations that represent them.

Look, I actually would like a little QoS. It must, however, be user-configurable, and nothing above the per-user level. Basically, a customer logs in, sets it so p2p traffic is low priority, VoiP is high priority. (Most of this can't be done on the customer's end, having to do more with how the ISP pushes data out to the customer). This in no way affects anyone else's connection, his traffic is on the same level as everyone else's. He can turn it off later if he wants.

What we don't need is Customer A's p2p traffic being throttled down to make way for Customer B's Netflix streaming. If this is happening, the ISP needs to spend some of their record profits on some more infrastructure.

In the end, Net Neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs don't wring extra profits out by demoting one particular class of traffic. The fruit just hangs too low to leave it unprotected.

Thank You Ars for bringing light into this very serious attack on Net Neutrality by Google and Verizon.

You bothered to read the 2 page joke of a proposal submitted by them and spotted the key elements which should sound the alarms of internet users everywhere.

Unfortunately your choice of fonts doesn't single out important words in your quotes very well and does not do your hard work justice for most ADD readers. You need to make those words bold and not italic.

I would also have used a more alarming title. This proposal is an attack. It is not a well intentioned proposal with loop-holes. It's the enemy in disguise.

But what exactly will these "additional or differentiated" services that ISPs could charge content providers extra cash for be? IP Video? The latest, coolest live conferencing app?

This isn't even a mystery, they spelled it out for everyone. Assuming Engadget's transcript is correct, here is exactly what they said;

--------------------Q[TechCrunch]:"There's some confusion about services -- all these networks are merging into IP-based networks. What services might there be that aren't on the internet?"

A[unspecified]: "I think everyone's trying to turn this into a problem. You think 3D goes over the internet? Some companies might want to send 3D over the internet, some might want to do something else because the quality might be better."---------------------

If that answer doesn't make you think this deal is horrible I don't know what will. He outlines the inherent problem with this deal by pointing out that the specific content could be distributed over the plain internet or through some newly created service.

Google is already streaming 3D videos on YouTube. I'm sure when Adobe finishes up their plan to support Nvidia's shutter based glasses in their Flash player many more online sources will be distributing 3D video.

For most people 3D video is just normal video at twice the frame rate + a pair of shutter based glasses. So basically what they're saying is that something as trivial as a minor bump in video quality (and the accompanying bump in size) is enough to warrant a new service tier, separate from the general Internet. What else qualifies for a new tier? 4K video, in terms of size, is probably more different from current video than 3D is; will that warrant a new tier of service? Will an upgraded Picasa with a higher allowance for image resolution warrant a new tier of service?

It's pretty damming when their best example of content which is different enough (in their eyes) to warrant a new service includes video, but at a slightly higher bitrate/framerate.

bottom line, encrypted P2P days are numbered once the Verizon-Google plan is approved. the people whining are either pirates or copyright infringers...

entertainment dystopia is dawning. i welcome it...

Uh...no.

What is (potentially) happening is the ISPs will be able to select which traffic they want to deliver at which speeds, and be able to charge premium for it. Let's say Netflix wants to be able to stream HD 3D movies over Verizons' lines...but Verizon says that this will negatively affect their customers. They will be able to throttle Netflix traffic because their is a loophole stating that ISPs can do what they want in order to provide customer service. Verizon can then demand that Netflix pay them to be on the "premium" internet where speeds won't be throttled. In other words, Verizon can control the supply of bandwidth based on their own arbitrary ideas of what is affecting their customers.

So my perfectly legal traffic can be affected by an ISP because Verizon wants the people who are using high-bandwidth services to pay them for usage. Furthermore, they want to have NO restrictions on what they can throttle over wireless connections. So, Skype, Netflix, Hulu, Twitter, Facebook, and any other traffic can be throttled based on Verizon's whims on wireless...so long as they state that they are doing it.

This becomes especially problematic when companies will have to pay Verizon not to be throttled, essentially holding online companies hostage if they want their customers to be able to use their services. Imagine if your news source of choice got 1/2 the speed of their competitors over wireless internet simply because they wouldn't pay-- THAT is what net neutrality is about.

Your explanation is puerile, and misses a hell of a lot of what net neutrality is about. Sure, ISPs would be able to throttle PTP, and a lot of pirates would hate that. But they'd also have the ability to effectively control all of your content over wireless and be able to force legitimate companies to pay them just so their services can work.

Net Neutrality is simple: all packets are equal. Meaning that if you're using your bandwidth to watch Netflix and your neighbor is using it to Skype, your ISP can't say that his Skype is more important than your Netflix, or make Netflix pay to be equal.

This isn't a 'pact' as the headline suggests. (A pact is an agreement, which it isn't.) It is only a proposal. Come on, don't mislead people. Understand the spirit behind the proposal. Make some constructive suggestions to maintain an open internet. In the light of the crisis created by the Comcast case, this is a fair attempt to protect the open nature of the internet. Of course, it may need some fine tuning which can only happen with some good suggestions from people like you.

This isn't a 'pact' as the headline suggests. (A pact is an agreement, which it isn't.) It is only a proposal. Come on, don't mislead people. Understand the spirit behind the proposal. Make some constructive suggestions to maintain an open internet. In the light of the crisis created by the Comcast case, this is a fair attempt to protect the open nature of the internet. Of course, it may need some fine tuning which can only happen with some good suggestions from people like you.

You've gotta be kidding. The "spirit behind the proposal" is blatant greed leading to thuggery on what used to be a public infrastructure. These guys are not interested in an open internet at all and you should wake up to that reality. Honestly, believing in Santa is less painful than believing that mega-corporations have the citizens' best interests at heart.

Look, I actually would like a little QoS. It must, however, be user-configurable, and nothing above the per-user level. Basically, a customer logs in, sets it so p2p traffic is low priority, VoiP is high priority. (Most of this can't be done on the customer's end, having to do more with how the ISP pushes data out to the customer).

...Most of it can be done at the home router level, where there should be a proper priority protocol.

So I'm still confused if this only applies to the data services that communcation companies offer or if for companies like ATT and Comcast which offer both internet/data/voice over their network. In some cases where they use VOIP instead of traditional phone where if they were doing QoS giving phone the bandwidth's priority which is allocated seperate from the data line's would that have to change due to net neutrality or would it only apply to the data layer of services?

Sigh this is why I'm only a fan of net neutrality in concept not actual use since there is too much to consider

Look, I actually would like a little QoS. It must, however, be user-configurable, and nothing above the per-user level. Basically, a customer logs in, sets it so p2p traffic is low priority, VoiP is high priority. (Most of this can't be done on the customer's end, having to do more with how the ISP pushes data out to the customer).

...Most of it can be done at the home router level, where there should be a proper priority protocol.

That's only for outgoing from yourself. He wants to be able to control the flow of incoming packets as well, which you cannot do at the home router level.

The thing is, most of the time you don't have that problem because you have so much inbound bandwidth that you don't really need QoS, except for jitter control.

I understand why you assume that these two players would try to push out potential rivals. That's what dominant competitors do. And yes, the FCC should step in to protect users.

But I don't get this stressing over "differentiated services". Verizon FiOS pushes digital TV, POTS, and broadband internet over a common line. The different services are broken out on a box attached to the rear of your house. Do you think Verizon should have no right to ensure their TV signal doesn't skip frames and stall like Hulu every time you kick off a popular torrent seed? Do you really want to pay $70-$120 a month for internet TV?

bottom line, encrypted P2P days are numbered once the Verizon-Google plan is approved. the people whining are either pirates or copyright infringers...

entertainment dystopia is dawning. i welcome it...

Uh...no.

What is (potentially) happening is the ISPs will be able to select which traffic they want to deliver at which speeds, and be able to charge premium for it. Let's say Netflix wants to be able to stream HD 3D movies over Verizons' lines...but Verizon says that this will negatively affect their customers. They will be able to throttle Netflix traffic because their is a loophole stating that ISPs can do what they want in order to provide customer service. Verizon can then demand that Netflix pay them to be on the "premium" internet where speeds won't be throttled. In other words, Verizon can control the supply of bandwidth based on their own arbitrary ideas of what is affecting their customers.

So my perfectly legal traffic can be affected by an ISP because Verizon wants the people who are using high-bandwidth services to pay them for usage. Furthermore, they want to have NO restrictions on what they can throttle over wireless connections. So, Skype, Netflix, Hulu, Twitter, Facebook, and any other traffic can be throttled based on Verizon's whims on wireless...so long as they state that they are doing it.

This becomes especially problematic when companies will have to pay Verizon not to be throttled, essentially holding online companies hostage if they want their customers to be able to use their services. Imagine if your news source of choice got 1/2 the speed of their competitors over wireless internet simply because they wouldn't pay-- THAT is what net neutrality is about.

Your explanation is puerile, and misses a hell of a lot of what net neutrality is about. Sure, ISPs would be able to throttle PTP, and a lot of pirates would hate that. But they'd also have the ability to effectively control all of your content over wireless and be able to force legitimate companies to pay them just so their services can work.

Net Neutrality is simple: all packets are equal. Meaning that if you're using your bandwidth to watch Netflix and your neighbor is using it to Skype, your ISP can't say that his Skype is more important than your Netflix, or make Netflix pay to be equal.

Quoted because it was such a good reply to such a bad comment. And on to my comment...

I'm guessing this is Google just trying to get everyone to the table. The problem is if the final result will be somewhere in the middle of what this document outlines, it is unacceptable.

The telcos have us by the balls right now and they intend to keep it that way and make it worse. They see all this money being made over their network and want to take a piece of the action.

If even half of what is mentioned comes to fruition, it would be a dark day for the inet in the states.

I think we can all agree that traffic prioritization is a necessary thing to keep a network running smoothly, but the way the telcos want to use it is not. Making sure P2P traffic isn't overwhelming the HTTP traffic is not the same as making sure Skype/G Voice doesn't work as well as [insert shitty, overpriced cable VoIP service here].

I'd rather Google and the rest of the tech world out there just turn their backs on the telcos and watch them eat their own tail.

But I don't get this stressing over "differentiated services". Verizon FiOS pushes digital TV, POTS, and broadband internet over a common line. The different services are broken out on a box attached to the rear of your house. Do you think Verizon should have no right to ensure their TV signal doesn't skip frames and stall like Hulu every time you kick off a popular torrent seed? Do you really want to pay $70-$120 a month for internet TV?

Cable pushes all those over a common line too. But the thing is the frequencies that are used for TV and are separate from those that are used for Internet+Phone.

The thing is, theres way too much question about how Net Neutrality is supposed to work with that respect. Is it supposed to be just for the "Internet" or is it supposed to be for the entire line? The way everyone wants it to work is just for the entire line, not just Internet connectivity. Something needs to give and somebody needs to realize how things actually work. Especially with Video over DOCSIS which is going to be the next step, in which case you run into huge problems with Net Neutrality from the provider's business standpoint. Of course, they could just not upgrade to Video over DOCSIS which would be hurting consumers that way they can keep their Video separate from Internet.

But I don't get this stressing over "differentiated services". Verizon FiOS pushes digital TV, POTS, and broadband internet over a common line. The different services are broken out on a box attached to the rear of your house. Do you think Verizon should have no right to ensure their TV signal doesn't skip frames and stall like Hulu every time you kick off a popular torrent seed? Do you really want to pay $70-$120 a month for internet TV?

Cable pushes all those over a common line too. But the thing is the frequencies that are used for TV and are separate from those that are used for Internet+Phone.

FIOS pushes broadcast video over a different light frequency. Program guide, video on-demand, STB widgets, VoIP service, every other value-added service that's not POTS uses an IP pipe.

U-verse video is 100% IPTV. I believe that their voice service is also VoIP.

TheCrackLing wrote:

The thing is, theres way too much question about how Net Neutrality is supposed to work with that respect. Is it supposed to be just for the "Internet" or is it supposed to be for the entire line? The way everyone wants it to work is just for the entire line, not just Internet connectivity. Something needs to give and somebody needs to realize how things actually work. Especially with Video over DOCSIS which is going to be the next step, in which case you run into huge problems with Net Neutrality from the provider's business standpoint. Of course, they could just not upgrade to Video over DOCSIS which would be hurting consumers that way they can keep their Video separate from Internet.

I mentioned this business case earlier, and it's gone unnoticed with all the rampant speculation about VZ and Google's evidently-nefarious plans fit for a villian from a Charlie Chaplain film.

AT&T and Verizon have no small amount of money invested in "value-added" IP services operating in parallel at the access layer, separated at the nearest convenient point (CO/concentrator/GWR) and running on a separate network the remaining >99% of the way. Cableco's are probably doing something similar. Hulu, YouTube, BitTorrent, et al flow over a different logical pipe.

Separate pipes = guaranteed performance without shaping packets coming in over the internet pipe. Even if there's no massive Net Neutrality law or regulation passed at some point in time, the FTC can always hear arguments about anti-competitive behavior. Interesting that this arrangement could shift to paid-carriage/QoS over the parallel private networks by private parties looking to reach an audience...